Inconsistent ratios is nothing new in film franchises. Star Wars is a good example, I want to say that there are several different ratios across the series. Time is a factor in that example, of course, but some of those differences were within each of the two trilogies.

Sometimes as time goes on, directors decide that they want to go for something a bit more cinematic.

My personal bet is that after 2.0, they had the freedom to go narrower. 1.0 and 2.0 resused animation from the original series which was 4:3 and extended to 16:9 (not cropped to 16:9). It would have been less than ideal to extend even further than that. But with 3.0, they were no longer reusing animation, and had a blank slate to work from. It would have been nice for all the aspect ratios to be consistent, but... if that's what they want to do, more power to them. I like seeing people break free of restrictions and try something new, even if it means having two different aspect ratios in the same film, like Dark Knight/Dark Knight Rises, or Hunger Games. I actually really love how they handled the change in Catching Fire.

Sam Raimi’s original Spider-Man movie has a standard theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1 (a bit wider than 16:9, but few people notice the difference unless they’re told) while both of the sequels had an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 (even wider than Eva Q’s 2.35:1 aspect ratio).

I think Star Wars was a bit more consistent in its aspect ratios than the other films franchises. But then again there have been so many Director’s (Re)Cuts that I’ve lost the interest in keeping track of them anymore.

I think Anno stated somewhere that he chose the 2.35:1 aspect ratio for Eva Q simply because a lot of the classic Godzilla Vs. and other Kaiju movies also used that aspect ratio in their original theatrical releases. (My personal favorite of these being The Terror of Mechagodzilla.)

And for the sake of completion, here’s a summary of the history and reasons behind all of these different aspect ratios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CgrMsjGk7k

One of my favorite things in 3.33. It opened up the compositions & allowed the feature to be more cinematic. For me it was Anno throwing off the kid gloves with his new Eva work. He was finally leaving behind aspect ratios that could be made & used for television - with a little editing you could cut the first two Eva movies up into 22 minute segments & release it on TV as a high budget animated mini-series & people who didn't know any better would think it was designed for that - & went for visuals that were truly cinematic!

I just wish that I could have seen the film projected in a film theater properly. In a way that would really let you enjoy the film as a cinematic event. (Funimation sent out Blu-rays for the theatrical showings. Pretty certain zero DCPs were made)

Well... I'm saving up money for Final. Of course then Anno will make that in 1.33:1 & B&W.

Among the people who use the Internet, many are obtuse. Because they are locked in their rooms, they hang on to that vision which is spreading across the world. But this does not go beyond mere ‘data’. Data without analysis [thinking], which makes you think that you know everything. This complacency is nothing but a trap. Moreover, the sense of values that counters this notion is paralyzed by it.

3.33 being in CinemaScope2:35:1 was amazing.The only way it would've been more awesome was if it was in CinemaScope 55 2:55:1 (like La La Land) or in Ultra PanaVision 65 2:75:1 (like Ben-Hur).Seeing another CinemaScope 55 film would be amazing, especially after La La Land two years ago.

Voted in college to be Most likely to Take Over the World, how to do that however, will require at leastFour Evangelions. Thanks for the idea Misato-san!"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." Said at the beginning of the nuclear age by J. Robert Oppenheimer."That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Words of Wisdom from German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.